W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Two suggestions

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:26:43 +0100
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: Craig Macbride <craigm@ragingbull.com>, KlausRusch@atmedia.net
Message-ID: <a01060005-1021-41BF2CD6EE8811D6B10300039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Klaus Johannes Rusch <KlausRusch@atmedia.net> wrote:

>Craig Macbride wrote:
>>The fact that some people are used to the misspelling is irrelevant.
>>Most people who use your web site don't need to use HTTP specs directly
>>and may never even know about the misspelling. Someone unaware of the
>>HTTP mistake and just seeing your URL on links would think you're
>>idiots.

I suspect that attitude is allready well established. :-)


>>How hard would it be to have a URL to the correct spelling as well as
>>the incorrect one?
>
>Allowing both spellings IMHO would make sense, only using /referrer
>would not.

Ok, the alternate spelling is now also recognized (changed in will be in
the next version), but we still use /referer in the text.

-- 
"Frailty, thy name is woman!"                    - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.
                   See Project Gutenberg <URL:http://promo.net/pg/> for more.
Received on Saturday, 2 November 2002 12:26:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:04 GMT